Podcast: Play in new window | Download (67.4MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
The University of Idaho hosted a public debate, to a crowd of over 800, on February 27, 2013. The debate was participated in by Andrew Sullivan, blogger and former senior editor of The Atlantic, and Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church of Moscow, ID, author and educator. The topic of the debate: Is Civil Marriage for Gay Couples Good for Society?
Battle of the Beards
We have often heard it said that, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This is often said in response to a disagreement in artistic preference and does help maintain a sense of “agreeing to disagree.” Being able to look past disagreements and maintain civilized, social order is a habit that many of us would do well to nurture, but is there any truth to the old adage? Is beauty indeed in the eye of the beholder? Is there any such thing as objective beauty? Something that’s beautiful even if no human had ever said, “Wow. Pretty.”
One way to pursue an answer to this question is by studying patterns in philosophical thought. The three major branches of philosophy are: Metaphysics (the study of stuff and its origin, whether physical, spiritual or otherwise), Epistemology (the study of knowledge and how mankind comes to acquire knowledge), and Ethics (the study of the evaluation of human conduct). Theologian John Frame makes a wise assessment when he generalizes this third branch into “Value Theory” instead of just “Ethics”. Value theory steps beck from merely assessing rules and codes of conduct to encompass traditional descriptive, normative and applied ethics, as well as aesthetics (the study of beauty) and economics. Aesthetics fits nicely as a sub-category of “value theory” but might be a tight fit under the category of “ethics”, or would it?
Here’s what I mean by patterns in philosophical thought. As Christians, when it comes to metaphysics, we do not leave the answers to the big questions about reality, existence, minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, etc., up to the one asking the questions. If someone says, “what’s true for you is true for you. As for me, reality is in the eye of the beholder.” That’s not an answer that receives much support from orthodox Christianity. In fact, most folks would scoff, right before questioning the person’s sanity.
And what about epistemology? How can I have knowledge of myself, the external world, and God? As Christians, is there some other point of beginning for knowledge and wisdom besides the revealed Word of God? If God has said, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge”, do we allow for some neutral zone where people can acquire knowledge on their own terms? How is it that we have the possibility of knowledge? Should we be rationalists or empiricists, or both, or neither? Tertium quid, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
What about ethics? Is moral human conduct up to the individual? Is it a social contract? Is it the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Is the greatest good even recognizable? When it comes to ethics, Christians are famous, if not notorious, for not allowing ethics to remain in the eye of the beholder. We have the ten commandments, the two greatest commandments, Psalm 119, which is a really long song about loving the law, the entire Pentateuch, the law of God written on our hearts, etc. The answer to this question of value theory rests in the revealed Word of God which contains His Law. No eyes of any beholders here.
So, I mentioned a pattern earlier. Metaphysical questions? Objective answers revealed by God. Epistemological questions? Objective standards revealed by God. Ethical questions? Ditto. What about questions about beauty, another branch of value theory? Does God have an opinion on what is beautiful and what isn’t? Does He delight in some things and find others detestable? If ever there was an opportunity to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this is it. God sees. God assesses. God beholds and declares beautiful or ugly. God weighs in the balances and finds some things wanting.
Once we’ve rejected the myth that all beauty is subjective, we can make some real progress towards a Christian aesthetic. So where do we begin? There is the difference between “beauty” and “preference” to consider. The smell of anchovies or the texture of sushi may come up in the conversation about preferences. There is the fact that everything that God finds beautiful may not tickle our fancy. Author Nate Wilson commends us to the reproductive patterns of the leopard slug, if we want to expand our horizons of aesthetic study. God created leopard slugs with all their mucous and odd protrusions, and God created bunnies and kittens. However, we often see bunnies and kittens on posters containing bible verses, but we never see posters with leopard slugs reproducing. Is there a verse somewhere in the Bible that extols the blessings of bunnies and kittens while condemning leopard slugs to eternal perdition? Maybe we do not yet see creation through the new eyes that we have been given.
Are questions concerning objective beauty the easiest questions to answer? Obviously not. Does the present author have an entire system of biblical aesthetics worked out? Uhhhh, nope. Is beauty one of those square inches of creation about which Jesus Christ says with great affection, “Mine!”? Yep. So, for those interested in embarking on the journey of Christian aesthetics, there’s a great article by Justin Hawkins over at FareForward. Here’s a sample…
In the Christian understanding, humanity was made for the contemplation and enjoyment of God, and since the beauty of creation is the shadow of the radiance of the divine beauty, it is no mystery that we are attracted to it as to the echo of a lover’s voice. In the beauty of creation, our Creator is speaking to us, and that is why we love beautiful things.
Ethics and aesthetics are too closely linked in value theory for one to be objectively true and the other to be left to individual preference. The non-Christian would agree with me and say that ethics and aesthetics are very closely linked, and they both ought to be based on individual preference. What should the Christian say?
<>
Just this past weekend (04/22/2013), Steve Jeffery, minister of Emmanuel Evangelical Church in Southgate, North London, England, hosted a colloquium for those who wish to experience the Word of God with new eyes.
The event featured special guest speaker Reverend James B Jordan, director of Biblical Horizons and soon to be joining Dr. Peter J Leithart at the Trinity House Institute for Biblical, Liturgical, & Cultural Studies in Birmingham, AL, who gave a four-part lecture entitled How to Read the Bible for the First Time…Again. (more…)
You are a committed Christian. You’re not just nominal. And you aren’t simply emotive or thoughtless. You know you are supposed to love the Lord with all your mind. The Bible applies to all of life. You want to take every thought captive to Christ. You have a Christian worldview.
And for that reason, you may be blind.
This is not because the Christian world view is false (thought the visual metaphor may need some balancing). It is because you are taking shortcuts and are too confident in what you know to think that you need to check yourself.
Just because the Christian world view is essential to fully understanding the truth doesn’t mean you need nothing else to learn the truth. You are called to take God’s word and apply it to all of life. But you are perfectly capable of taking God’s word and applying it to your imagination—or to some fictional constructs that you have been taught and have never investigated for yourself.
Think of the culture war and American politics. There are people who need your vote in order to gain their place in the political structure of the United States of America. They know you are a Christian. They know they need the support (at least on Election Day) of people who possess a Christian World and Life View. Do you really think that, even if they plan to go in an entirely different direction, they don’t have ways of appealing to you to deceive and manipulate you to get your endorsement? If you wave the Bible, you are inviting people to use your values to lead you in a direction that might end up being the exact opposite of where they claim they are going.
It is simply not enough to know the truth about God, Jesus, and his ethical directions. You have to know something about your world, your time in history, and the people around you.
Is Islam the biggest threat to Christianity? Knowing that Islam is a false religion and that Christianity is true does not mean you have enough information to decide that question. If Islam is an independent international power, it may be such a threat. If, in fact, Islamic power is dependent on the cooperation and sponsorship of Western governments, then you might need to adjust your estimate and give first place to modern secular totalitarianism.
Should American Christians support Israel (or to what extent and in what way)? Should they support the Federal Government’s containment policy against China? Should Christians regard Putin as a thug and demand more civil liberties for Russians, or perhaps regard him as a thug and figure he shouldn’t worry about “Western” secular civil liberties? Unless they have done due diligence on the history, Christians have no right to hold an opinion on such topics. Knowledge of the importance of the Trinity to the question of the one and the many or the importance of private property to a social order won’t be enough to tell you anything.
Another complication is that Christians may not correctly understand the Christian world view, and they might actually profit from correction on those points from a non-Christian, despite the non-Christian’s central error. It is quite easy to prevent a Christian from receiving such correction by pointing to the unbeliever’s destructive beliefs and practices. I think virtually every Christian critique of Ayn Rand I have seen on the web could easily be used in this way.
One might recommend that Christians simply confess their ignorance and stay out of matters they know nothing about. But that is impossible for Americans today. Everyone—everyone—is recruiting Christians to a foreign policy or domestic cause on the basis of the alleged demands of the Christian worldview. If man-made global warming is real, then Christians must participate and support whatever scheme might fix it on the basis of “stewardship.” But the Bible doesn’t tell you whether it is real or not. If the agricultural developments of the twentieth century were the natural and spontaneous progress of scientific development providing cheaper food on the free market, that will demand one stance from Christians. If those developments were a patent monopoly used by US cold war policy to destroy indigenous agriculture and make other nations dependent on petroleum fertilizers and other purchases from a cartel, that will demand a different stance. Again, the Bible doesn’t tell you any of it.
And many don’t want to face up to how complex our situation really is. They want to add the Bible to a few unquestionable facts. You learn what those facts are, typically, when you hear your favorite Bible teacher or worldview think tank leader refer to anyone who questions or denies them as an “idiot.”
Calling people idiots and denying that they should ever be heard or considered has a far greater role in the “Christian world and life view” as it is actually practiced by Christians than anyone wants to admit.
I realize no one can know everything. But if you’re going to express an opinion on what God thinks about something, you’re going to have to study not only God’s Word but also that “something.” As much as Americans need to read more of the Bible, they also need to read more history and international politics. There’s no way to do otherwise and still claim to have a Christian view of the world as it actually is.
John Calvin famously compared the Bible to the lenses of eyeglasses. That is the point. You are supposed to look through them at the world. Too many Christians stare at the lenses or use them to stare at pictures a few influential Christians have painted for them.
(Cross-posted at Christendom Underground)<>
Thomas S. Kidd is special contributor to the Kuyperian Commentary
A remarkable political asylum case has raised questions about whether the U.S. government should defend the right of families to homeschool. The case concerns the Romeike family of Germany, where homeschooling is illegal, and where families who attempt to homeschool their children can face heavy fines and even have their children taken from them. An American immigration judge granted the Romeikes political asylum in 2010, but the Obama Justice Department has been working to overturn their asylum status and have them returned to Germany. Administration lawyers say that the German law does not represent any kind of specific religious discrimination (which would warrant asylum), but only a general legal requirement that all children attend public or state-supervised schools. Thus, in the administration’s view, German authorities punish families like the Romeikes not because they are Christian homeschoolers, but because their children are not attending a governmentally-sanctioned school.
I understand that this issue is more complex than whether Attorney General Eric Holder likes homeschooling or not. And I very much hesitate to designate a political good as a “fundamental human right,” because such notions have become distended and overused in modern American politics. Furthermore, it is not “homeschooling,” per se, that is a fundamental human right. What is fundamental, however, is the right of parents to raise their children according to their consciences, without interference from the state. The Obama adminstration hopefully has no inclination to infringe upon this right in America, but in this case they obviously have more sympathy for Germany’s rigid education policy than the rights of parents, including parents of dissenting religious sensibilities.
The effect of Germany’s law (which, thankfully, is almost unique in western Europe) is to ban parents from taking primary responsibility for educating their children. The most common reason parents would want to do that is religious conviction. This is certainly the case with the Romeikes, so they deserve political asylum as refugees from religious persecution by the government of Germany. Other German Christian homeschoolers have already been fined, and even jailed, for acting according to their conscience with regard to schooling, and the Romeikes can reasonably expect similar treatment if the Obama administration forces them to return. Reasonable fear of such persecution is clear justification for political asylum.
Originally posted here.
For more coverage, see:
Joseph Knippenberg, “Federal Government Tries to Block Homeschooling Refugees,” First Things
Mary Jackson, “Christian homeschoolers losing deportation fight,” WORLD Magazine
Napp Nazworth, “Homeschooling Not a Fundamental Right, Justice Dept. Argues,” Christian Post
Joe Carter, “Homeschooling Not a Fundamental Right Says Justice Department,” Acton Institute
Michael Farris, “Sobering Thoughts from the Romeike Case,” Home School Legal Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes
Rod Dreher, “Romeikes as Canaries in Coal Mines,” American Conservative<>
Joshua Hinn, the son of the famed evangelist Benny Hinn, was arrested in Brazil, reports Daily Mail. The charge is that Joshua Hinn allegedly beat up a deaf and dumb man during one of his father’s rallies. The man, Hestephenson Araujo, 21, approached the stage with a bottle of water and was immediately tackled by two of Hinn’s bodyguards. Mr. Araujo alleged he only wanted to be blessed by the evangelist who is worth more than $40 million.
The deaf and blind man will get a blessing from the evangelist, not a healing, but a large sum of money:
According to police, Mr Araujo’s father, a sign language translator, entered into an agreement with Benny Hinn’s representatives to not press charges against the men.
Police sources told Brazilian website Portal do Holanda that the agreement involved a “large sum of money”.
Hinn’s controversial healing ministry has made him one of the richest pastors in the world. Brazil, home of the largest Roman Catholic population in the world, is now also the home of an increasing market for neo-Pentecostalism (of which Hinn is usually associated). According to Forbes:
While Catholicism still preaches a very conservative look to an afterlife instead of earthly riches, evangelicals–especially the ‘neo-Pentecostal’ ones–are taught that it’s all right to be prosperous. This doctrine, known as ‘Prosperity Theology,’ is in the foundation of the most successful evangelical churches in Brazil.
Hinn’s personality and message make him a beloved figure in the broadly Pentecostal scene. As evangelicals continue to grow in Brazil (mainly through neo-Pentecostalism), Hinn and his theology have become largely accessible to the Brazilian population. Most of his writings are translated into Portuguese and his ministry is becoming more and more at home in the land of samba and futebol.
DJesus UnCrossed is SNL’s latest attempt to de-christ Christ. Of course, in our day, Jesus is easy to disrespect. One wonders if SNL would attempt a comedy journey through the life of Muhammad. No further comments needed.
David Flowers believes that the skit has something to teach us, and that we should begin to listen to our critics. He argues that the skit has hermeneutical problems, but that it shows our hypocrisy and inconsistency in our faith. Flowers argues that this is the result of an American-shaped Jesus. He is correct to assert that humor has a way of offending Christians and revealing weaknesses and hypocrisy. We should be aware of them.
The Jesus raised from the dead murdering Romans out of revenge seems bizarre in light of the biblical narrative. Flowers is correct to assert that it reveals the Jesus kick-ass motif portrayed by many in our evangelical culture. It is easy to object to the video’s false portrayals, but in what sense is this skit true, even with its exaggerative, undoubtedly heretical, and faulty hermeneutics? There is something to be learned here. Flowers is correct that we are to listen to our critics. The point, however, is that our critics don’t go far enough.
Surely the 2nd Amendment Rights’ Jesus is very American and Neo-Conservative like. But that doesn’t even begin to describe the type of justice-driven Messiah we as Orthodox Christians believe.
For starters, we believe in a Messiah that is ascended to the right hand of the Father, and from that place of kingship rules and reigns over us and creation. He is not an unmoved Mover. Further, Jesus did not have the Romans in mind when He judged, He had the corrupt and idolatrous first century Jewish generation in mind. Upon them, He brought a profound tribulation (Mt. 24). The Gospel Lesson this Sunday is Luke 13:31-35 where Jesus laments over Jerusalem. He sought her with love, but she continued to kill and murder the prophets sent with a message of salvation and deliverance. The vengeful Jesus portrayed by SNL has no interest in context, but it should well observe that the Messiah who destroys is first the Messiah who shows mercy.
How Can we Learn from SNL?
First, Saturday Night Live is not a theology show. Its humor is devoid of accuracy, and frankly, that is not their interest. They have been on the air for 37 years because of their exaggerated (especially in the last ten years) view of current events. This is important to keep in mind.
Secondly, use these opportunities to correct false information. Bill Maher, the well-known HBO atheist host, does this better than anyone I know. He takes a portion of Scriptures and twists its meaning in a fashion that would make even the devil jealous. This is a good time for Christians to be hermeneutically savvy. In fact, go ahead and make a t-shirt with that slogan “I am hermeneutically savvy.”
Thirdly, do not allow an exclusively New Covenant narrative to shape your theology. As James Jordan observes: “The division of the Bible into “Old Testament” and “New Testament” is merely for convenience, for the Scriptures are one narrative from beginning to end.” It is important to note also that this one narrative portrays God as a God of justice who says all vengeance belongs to Him. The modern Marcionites have failed us just as much as SNL has.
Finally, remember that the life of Jesus–especially as we meditate upon it in this Lenten Season–is a life of cross before glory; suffering before resurrection. The Jesus that came out of the grave was first a Jesus that came riding on a donkey as the Prince of Peace. But that same Jesus has promised to come again riding a horse of judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70 and upon all those who despise His Name at the end of history.<>
Lyndon Johnson had a dream. Following Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson moved speedily to embody Kennedy’s vision for the country. After Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnson’s vision for a post-Kennedy country was as ambitious as FDR’s. With only 11 months before the elections of 1964, Johnson had to prove to the country that his presidency wasn’t just due to Kennedy’s departure, but that he also deserved a chance by his own merits to lead the country for four more years. Johnson wooed Congress to pass his agenda. He continued JFK’s vision for a Civil Right’s Act, which was passed. Johnson also instituted a vision for a Great Society, which included a War on Poverty. At that moment, Liberalism’s goal to crown the Federal Government as the giver of life was achieved in a way Roosevelt could not.
Under Johnson’s presidency, Liberalism gained a powerful ally. The following agenda reveals the genesis of some of our current woes:
Vietnam, of course, shattered Johnson’s vision for a New Heaven and Earth. Now the attention of a nation was drawn to the disastrous Vietnam War.
Jeb Bush’s Vision
In some ways, Democrats have attempted to continue the Johnson legacy. They have succeeded. $16.5 Trillion in debt reveals that the Democratic leaders paid careful attention to Johnson’s blueprint for the nation. But we have come to expect this type of consistent ideology from Democrats.
Enters Jeb Bush.
The former Governor has been deeply engaged in talks about a 2016 run. In comments made towards immigration Reform, the former Governor of Florida extolled Johnson’s skills as a legislator. Breitbart quotes Bush’s assessment of Johnson:
“He went and he cajoled, he begged, he threatened, he loved, he hugged, he did what leaders do, which is they personally get engaged to make something happen,’’ Bush said of Johnson.
To be fair, Bush did not praise Johnson’s Great Society or War on Poverty, but Bush’s invoking of Johnson positively in any way reminds Conservatives and Moral Libertarians of the misdirected attempts of healing the nation through unconstitutional means. It prompts us to ask, “what keeps Bush from incarnating Johnson’s presidency not only in the immigration issue, but other important matters as well? ”
Of course, the best read of this situation is that he is arguing for a hands-on presidency (like Johnson’s) in an attempt to discredit Obama’s hands-off presidency. But forgive the political pessimism from my perspective, but I seem to have a general distrust of the Bush brand of political reform.<>
Valentine was a third century pastor who was imprisoned for his faith. He wrote small pastoral notes to members of his congregation on leaves he was able to pluck from a maple tree just outside his cell. These little “Valentine’s cards” expressed his love for the flock, and his desire that they demonstrate like love toward one another. Gradually the tradition grew up for Christians to exchange notes of love and encouragement to one another every year on his birthday, February 14.
Dr. George Grant, http://grantian.blogspot.com/2013/02/st-valentines-day.html
We’ve seen baseball stadium proposals where a guy’s urgent question is slapped on the Jumbotron for all in attendance to see. Some men even think it’s romantic to shout their devotion in front of thousands of strangers. Several years back, Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson even tried to convince us that women would actually want this type of proposal. In case you might be contemplating this type of proposal, let me tell you that it is about as tasteful as the rest of Sandler’s work.
In many ways, American romance is Jumbotron romance. Valentine’s Day is a good example. We couch our love in the impersonal and to the cheap. When did the standard fall so low that somehow chocolate and flowers become the epitome of devotion. We should understand these are good things. Any man who forgets them will enjoy the spurn of his wife. But this type of impersonal devotion once a year is akin to attending Easter and Christmas services, yet claiming to love Christ.
A culture of cheap grace produces cheap love.
“Cheap grace is preaching forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession. … Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Cheap love is giving chocolate without cordial affection, flowers without real delight and pleasure, “I Love Yous” without contentment and satisfaction … Cheap love is love without submission, love without crucifying-self, love without Jesus Christ, living and Incarnate. Cheap love teaches, “Sex is such a hassle, talking is even worse.” Christian love teaches, “rejoice in the wife of your youth.”
Our romance should be modeled after Christ’s self-giving devotion to his bride, which is why St. Valentine is such a beautiful saint. This is not to say that the mark of Valentine’s Day is simply reading verses over flowers-rather that marriage is an image of loving tension. The tenderest love on one side, and loving obedience on the other. This means that romance is an adventure, not a commute. We don’t travel through life enduring the “trial of marriage,” but through the exploration of Godly marriage, we are transformed by the circumstances of our love story.
Valentine’s Day is a day for us to look at our adventure, where we’ve been, and where we are going.
Valentine’s Day is a time for Christian men who once belonged to the old Adam to become priests of the New Adam. Where the old Adam betrayed the love of his bride, we -as Priests of the new Adam- guard, nurture and protect our redeemed garden-helper. And as such has been called to wash our wives in Christ’s love.
Valentine’s Day is a time to celebrate together as we see God transforming our brides into a holy bride without wrinkle, spot, or blemish.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a link is given.
In the past few months, I’ve posted two articles on sexuality and marriage, you can read those here:
<>
For anyone who watched the Grammy’s—I did not—or saw pictures and reports from the event—I did—it doesn’t take much to realize the importance of shock value when it comes to Hollywood. From the dresses—or lack thereof—being worn by the stars, to the language coming from entertainers during their presentations, one can see how much importance they place on shock value.
It seems the old fashioned way of introducing confrontations to our values has been replaced by shocking us into seeing those things that confront our values as the norm.
It used to be that television would never show, nor even imply, that a husband and a wife shared the same bed. Do you know what the first television series was to show husband and wife sleeping in the same bed? The Flintstones. It was the Flintstones that introduced the notion that a man and woman could share the same bed, and they introduced it slowly to a new generation of viewers (our children, rather us as children). Change the way they think, and when they grow up, that will be the new norm.
Of course, husband and wife do share the same bed, that is not necessarily the issue. It was not the norm, however, to show that on television and this is just an example of how that idea was undermined or subverted.
Nowadays, even Hollywood is too impatient to change our values that way. Now (its actually been awhile this is has been happening) they throw the most shocking thing they can in our faces. In this way, something slightly less shocking, but no less confrontational to conservative, Christian values of modesty, will be seen as the norm.
Steve Wilkins, in his book Face to Face, warns against having friends who are not seeking wisdom, Godliness, obedience to God’s Word, and increasing holiness. He then goes on to define friends as those who impact us and the way they think. He even identifies television show characters as a kind of friend, week in and week out speaking into our lives. Even those friends, though, must meet the guidelines for friendship. It seems, however, that the television industry isn’t looking to offer us friends who are seeking wisdom and holiness, but who can shock us into realigning our tired, old values.
In this season of Lent, maybe we ought to reevaluate what kind of friends we allow ourselves to have—especially those who make their way in through our television. Or, as Steve Schlissel once said, maybe we need to consider the impact television [and friends] have on our taking of dominion and discipling the nations.
<>
Kuyperian Commentary Podcast
